ban on swearing

Sort:
QuintusMaximus

I was just kicked for swearing, read up on why that was the case, and felt I had to say something about it. Why I swore is mostly immaterial except that I was frustrated at an opponent who was employing a tactic I viewed as 'cheap.' In other words I was being tooled on and wanted to whine. And for that attempt my last hour of chess before sleep was removed.

Blocking swear words I can understand. But kicking someone out for it is more immature than swearing itself. Swear words, cuss words, 'bad words,' call them what you like, are a collection of vocabulary reserved for situations in which one feels a need to voice frustration, anger, and resentment. They do not create frustration, anger, or resentment. People do. Swear words, like guns, get a bad rap when they've always only done what we invented them for. And swear words have a good purpose.

When one is a child feeling ready to cry, one is often told by a maternal figure in their life to 'let it out.' This process, of openly sobbing, soothes one's spirit. If one hold those tears in, they will fester and breed negativity. Similarly, when one is overwrought with negative emotion, one feels the urge to cuss the air blue. If one does, one feels soothed. If one doesn't, those emotions sink inside the soul and rot it from within, denied a route of escape through violent verbature.

I felt the need to type this up because I suddenly found myself with an hour of free time that I didn't know how to fill, and because I think swearing shouldn't be an offense which gets one banned for any period of time. Just block swears. The impulse to prevent minors from seeing bad words on this website is fine, although naive because anyone with access to chess.com has access to every bad word ever invented along with adult content of every shade-- but they don't need to see that here, I get it. But the impulse to punish swearing speaks of an ill-informed holier-than-thou attitude that I find reprehensible. Thank you for your time. I'm sorry if I ofended you. On behalf of swear words everywhere, I apologize. They were only messengers of malintent, and for that they have been shot. They ask only for your forgiveness in the afterlife.

DelCheMethod
So.....I'm guessing you typed those swear words during a game? If it's your release, why type them? Just say them out loud. I'm sure you're smart enough to know that your opponent didn't think you were just releasing steam. And why didn't you just claim 3fold draw in that game? If you couldn't get out of the check, better to draw than resign.
goldendog

The "right" to swear is not the liberty to do so whenever, wherever, and with whomever you want.

Blackfang

Certainly, but this isn't the USA. This is a privately owned website. You can't do whatever you like on a privately owned website.

Corvidae_Corvus
Dilshod_Mirziyoyev wrote:

I do not understan.  In the U.S. and A. you have the right for free speeches, everyknow that. 

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects speech in the United States, but not in all forms. Court rulings have led most instances of swearing to be classified as unprotected speech. While it can be difficult for the government to prosecute someone for simple swearing, you can be prosecuted for using profanity to harass people, incite a riot or disturb the peace. Also, many courts have determined that swearing in some cases can constitute sexual harassment by creating a hostile work environment. Private organizations, however, are exempt from the First Amendment in most cases. Courts have recognized the right of a private organization to set its own standard of conduct.

 

So,when you signed up and accepted terms you aggred to those terms or were not allowed to continue to sign up. You did read the entire fine print Right?? No?? Me either, reminds me of the One of the funniest South Park episodes of all time! ... about the T's and C's from Itunes.

gaereagdag

I think that chess.com does have a point of view.

If you walk into a supermarket and start shouting swearwords, do you expect that the supermarket will tolerate you being there and scaring away its customers?

Gil-Gandel

Threefold repetition, OP. Claim the draw if you like, it can't be refused. If you want to whine because you think you were "winning", treat it as a learning opportunity - if you want to win, you must avoid getting caught in a perpetual check. I don't care if you're five queens ahead with mate on the move, if you've let your opponent check you perpetually then you cannot win and it's your own fault for allowing the situ to arise (or, alternatively, well done the oppo for finding the drawing chance). Also, wash out your potty mouth with green soap and act like a grown-up in future.

rooperi

Free speech means you can say what you like, but notr how you like.

janet100
Gil-Gandel wrote:

Threefold repetition, OP. Claim the draw if you like, it can't be refused. If you want to whine because you think you were "winning", treat it as a learning opportunity - if you want to win, you must avoid getting caught in a perpetual check. I don't care if you're five queens ahead with mate on the move, if you've let your opponent check you perpetually then you cannot win and it's your own fault for allowing the situ to arise (or, alternatively, well done the oppo for finding the drawing chance). Also, wash out your potty mouth with green soap and act like a grown-up in future.

- well said!  I too was once verbally abused for trapping my opponent in perpetual check when he had been 'winning'.  Perpetual check is a legitimate aspect of the game and if you really are 'winning' then you should see it coming and take steps to avoid it. I can understand that falling into the perpet trap would be frustrating - but you should beat yourself up for allowing it to happen, not your opponent

Corvidae_Corvus
linuxblue1 wrote:

I think that chess.com does have a point of view.

If you walk into a supermarket and start shouting swearwords, do you expect that the supermarket will tolerate you being there and scaring away its customers?

i propose an experiment to see what supermarket is the most liberal in its policy of free speech. Just a sec,,,, while.... I chug ...... these last...... couple .. beers.(burp!! excuse me!)  now I will test my local Smiths/Frys . we all meet back here in 30 minutes(or, most likely, in 24 hrs, when we get out of jail) and compare notes.

Corvidae_Corvus
Dilshod_Mirziyoyev wrote:

What if "private organisation" like the chess-com were to deny other U.S. basic freedom like if it discriminate against some users because of race or their religion?  Would then not say they are simply "private organisation" and can do such?

How is this different than deny user freedom of speeches based on the same argument that it "private site"?

Certainly if it is a private organisation (which I would think by definition means there are restrictions on who can enter, use the facilities, etc.) then you can do whatever you want. Naturally, it is generally not in your best interest to discriminate unless you want a lot of hate mail, firebombings, etc., but if you are swank enough, no one seems to care. I think you get into trouble if anyone from the public is otherwise invited but are then treated differently once they arrive based on some physical/ socioeconomic trait.

I imagine this is why the nightclubs with the bouncers that only let in the 'beautiful people' don't get busted for not allowing random people in the club. You see, the doorman allows you to enter, and then you may have to pay a cover charge, hence the 'general public' isn't invited in. They are welcome to 'apply' to the doorman who may then select them based on various criteria.
 
Corvidae_Corvus

Well, that was exageration for emphasis. I am not really sure on this, as we are comparing a private web based service, versus a public commerce based on selling tangible goods.  Short answer, no you cannot discriminate in places like a store or restaurant. I am way out of my element in matters of law, thats why lawers and law schools do so well in USA, their are thousands of variations, ammendments, ect. and each state had it's own laws on top of Federal laws. Not to mention the burden of proof, I mean I could refuse someone different from me in some way, from participating in one of my groups,(not saying I would, lets be clear on that!) But you would have to prove, I discriminated against you because of race,religion,ect. 

To be honest, it's just not something my generation has had to deal with as much is the prior ones.  when asked to define our race, we reply "Human, of course!"  I understand the history of discrimination, I am 3rd generation of Polish Immigrants, I just dont understand the why?

I have served with many, many fine people of all ethnic and  religious backgrounds, I work with all types of people now, and love chess and chess.com because it bridges any, and all barriers. 

Gazmanus

This site is for pleasant and pleasurable pursuit. Swearing and abuse have no place here. 

flatters1

OP, gentle adults and children use this site and you may find yourself playing against them.  I'm certain there are other sites or groups where the swearing is welcome or at least expected.  I, for one of many, would not use this site if there were not such standards of conduct.

johnyoudell

Agreed. I like the house rules of those who created and operate this site (as well as admiring the excellent chess facilities they offer me).  But whether I like someone's house rules or not, to acknowledge that in someone else's house they make the rules and a visitor obeys them (or leaves) is universal - it needs no system of law to understand.

For those who pay, law does come into it; contract law. My knowledge of law is confined to english law but contract law was made by merchants and needed to follow trade across borders. So it has international aspects.  Usually a contract is seen as an exchange of promises, each promise enforceable against the one who makes it.  The rules of the site represent the promise made by the owners to those who pay them to come here. The owners owe it to those who pay them to enforce those rules. Failure to do so would breach the contract and would be actionable.

johnyoudell

Well, Dilshod, there is a school of philosophy, hedonism, which equates what is pleasant and pleasurable with what is good.

Sadly, from your particular point of view, it argues that it is what is pleasant and pleasurable for the greatest number which represents the good.

Satanism may be more in your line. Do as you wish shall be the whole of the law is their idea.

ivandh

cashew

Gil-Gandel
ronaldcrandall wrote:

there system is stupid. period. not using chess.com anymore.

Don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you.

LeavesFX

Swearing does not seem to be even addresss anymore.  Opponents are openly and frequently swearing.  Where are the moderators?  Or has this site just targeted those in the US and allows all others to do as they please?

Kirkwood
LeavesFX wrote:

Swearing does not seem to be even addresss anymore.  Opponents are openly and frequently swearing.  Where are the moderators?  Or has this site just targeted those in the US and allows all others to do as they please?

If our systems and moderators don't pick up on swearing and abuse for some reason, please report abusive users to our support team. You can contact us here:

https://support.chess.com/customer/portal/emails/new